Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]
Traditionally the USPTO used for claims interpretation during patent examination a "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification" standard, [33] while the US courts in suits for patent infringement, during a Markman hearing, a claim is interpreted using a narrower standard. This duality (broader during examination, narrower ...
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
Ireland appears to subscribe to a doctrine of equivalents. In Farbwerke Hoechst v Intercontinental Pharmaceuticals (Eire) Ltd (1968), a case involving a patent of a chemical process, the High Court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's patent despite the fact that the defendant had substituted the starting material specified in the patent claim for another material.
The examination is intended to measure the applicant's familiarity with USPTO procedures, ethics rules, federal statutes, and regulations. The applicant is allowed to use an electronic copy of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in the computer-based examination (and historically had access to a paper copy of the MPEP for the pencil-and-paper test), but is strictly prohibited from ...
Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Konrad is an example of a case that focuses on the public use and on-sale criteria of this section. This section of US code was affected by the America Invents Act (AIA). The most important part of section 102 now reads as follows: [6] (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
The D.C. Circuit ruled in the NRDC's favor in 1982. In an opinion written by U.S. circuit judge (and future Supreme Court justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA's new interpretation of "source" conflicted with the Circuit's prior cases interpreting the term and that the EPA's new interpretation was invalid. [3]
In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is the step in the formation of an invention beyond the conception thereof. Reduction to practice may be either actual (the invention is actually carried out and is found to work for its intended purpose) or constructive (a patent application having a sufficient disclosure is filed).